See more of our coverage in your search results.
The civil case against seven Cornell fraternity men was a media spectacle from Day 1, thanks to the shrewd actions of the accuser’s attorneys — and the circus is only getting crazier.
That means a near-zero chance of fairness for the accused when the case goes to trial, unless the court shuts down the theatrics pronto.
The lawsuit springing from the actions of eight college kids boasts an all-star cast of legal titans: Thomas Giuffra, who’s lawyering for the female accuser, has raked in millions representing women who accused Harvey Weinstein and Sean “Diddy” Combs of sexual assault.
Mark Geragos, who has represented Combs, NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick and Hunter Biden, is appearing on TMZ, acting as what Giuffra calls a “shadow member” of Doe’s team.
These big-shot lawyers are on the case because deep-pocketed Cornell University is also one of the defendants.
Civil suits are about money, not sending anyone to jail.
Giuffra is assisting accuser Jane Doe in firing off written statements to media outlets claiming she was “raped” and “brutalized” in the Chi Phi fraternity house.
The anonymous Ms. Doe is awash in accolades from A-listers like actress Florence Pugh, who’s called Doe “so unbelievably powerful” and “so strong willed” on social media.
Nonsense. There’s nothing powerful about hiding your identity instead of publicly standing by your claims.
And despite the ginned-up publicity she’s willingly courted, New York state law shields Jane Doe with anonymity.
Public officials can’t release her name, unless the court orders it.
Meanwhile the seven accused young men — all named in the complaint filed on Sept. 16 — are being socially and professionally destroyed.
Giuffra could have omitted their names — in fact, he spared certain Cornell faculty members and administrators who are also defendants, calling them John Does in his filing.
But when it came to the frat boys, he went for the jugular.
Last week, lawyers for one of the accused male students asked the court to put a stop to the trial-by-publicity, “to ensure that the litigation occurs where it belongs, in the courtroom, rather than through an ongoing public relations campaign.”
They warned of “improper influence upon the prospective juror pool.”
The request cited statements of purported fact from Doe and her attorney — assertions that she was incapable of consent, and that the defendants had disposed of evidence to further a cover-up.
They pointed out that such facts must be established in a courtroom, by witnesses subject to cross-examination.
They asked for a gag order to be applied to both sides, an even-handed approach.
But on Friday Judge Phaedra F. Perry-Bond summarily rejected the request, offering a lot of blather but no real substance.
Here’s the latest on the ‘Cornell 7’ frat probe:
- ‘Cornell 7’ rape accuser claims she faced bizarre accusation in newly resurfaced text messages
- Polymarket removes bets on ‘Cornell 7’ gang-rape case as activists target LeBron James, celebrity endorsers
- Cornell president pressed by angry faculty members frustrated by his handling of gang rape case
- Cornell only expelled 2 of 16 students found responsible for recent sex assaults
She called it a “‘side show’ meant to muddy the waters and distract from the merits,” adding, “there’s nothing stopping defendants from demonstrating through the course of litigation” that the statements made in the press are untrue.
So Doe is free to attack the defendants by name, but they are muzzled from naming her.
And the ruling leaves Giuffra free to keep playing the press like a fiddle.
Even before filing the suit he provided information to a Cornell Sun reporter, ensuring that she was, in her own words, “really prepared” when the story broke.
On Tuesday, Giuffra was at it again: The New York Times ran a front-page story about a letter from Doe, delivered to the Cornell University Senate by Guiffra, asking the faculty to condemn university administrators for their inaction.
He’s trying to get a judgment against Cornell in the court of public opinion before the trial even starts.
This civil case is just beginning. There’s time to right the ship and provide justice.
Look for one of the defendants to ask the judge to break the seal of Doe’s anonymity.
Her active engagement with the press should automatically forfeit her right to be shielded from scrutiny.
Meanwhile, pressure is building for the defendants to face criminal as well as civil charges — and long prison sentences if convicted.
But that decision must be made based on evidence, not politics.
Ithaca District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says criminal charges weren’t brought in 2024 because “nothing in Doe’s original statement indicated she was drugged without consent or had sex against her will,” and that “each time Jane Doe asked to stop the sexual conduct, the sexual conduct stopped.”
These facts are omitted from the civil complaint.
Jane Doe’s experience at the Chi Phi fraternity house was horrible, but a jury will have to decide who is responsible for it.
An impartial jury presented with the facts: That’s the American way of justice — not Hollywood lawyers calling the shots on television.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.